Saturday, November 25, 2006

The Testing of Lenin

Well, well: 'lenin' has now gone and banned me. Was that bravely done?

Whatever it was, it's certainly a very low comedy he's staging there. And brave or cowardly, it's all he can come up with. Having run out of evasive strategies on the Unwelcome Topic of 9/11, 'lenin' has now very quickly run out of arguments. This is not surprising, as the very best he had to offer in defence of the Bush Gang's cover-story was the 'evidence' tortured out of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed by the CIA and subsequently presented at the farcical 'trial' of Mounir al-Motassadeq in Hamburg.

Robbed of such shabby props, 'lenin' knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on. In mentioning his infirmity, I was committing the inexcusable crime of lèse majesté. Therefore, I had to go.

"there is usually little we can do about any putative conspiracy beyond strengthening our class and making sure it is capable of minimising the effects of such activities."

"Our" class? Of course, he means his class: the chinrubbing, arse-covering clerical class. And presumably 'lenin''s class will "minimise the effects of such activities" in precisely the same way it is minimising them now: namely, not at all. On the contrary.

Low comedy. Still, not to worry; on the comments threads here and here, paul, milosevic, Peter Blapps, Tuppenceworth and many others (including a fellow-qlipoth) demonstrate that there will be back-talk enough. As 'lenin' huffs and puffs and blows his own house down, it's becoming ever more obvious that he and the rest of the 9/11Falsers are running out of steam. On the entire issue of 9/11, 'lenin''s performance (like Alexander Cockburn's and David Corn's) has been - and is - a moral and intellectual disgrace. No-one can take such stuff seriously anymore. Of course 'lenin' knows this too. His vanity is at stake, hence his viciousness.

In other news, the 'War' on 'Terror' proceeds apace, its major premise still unquestioned by the Prudently Harmless Left. (With an "antiwar movement" like lenin's, who needs a pro-war movement?)

- Here is the post he refused to print:

Steffaction, Good point. It's like having video footage of a fella murdering all of his neighbours, but spending all your time and energy wondering about whether he slapped his wife on his way out to do it. ant 25 Nov, 16:30 #

No, ant; it's not. It's about having an underinformed and TV-addicted population that's traditionally indifferent to the low-cost killing of foreigners in Panama or Nicaragua - and then galvanising them by demonstrating that Evil Omnipresent Foreigners can actually kill them in their thousands, any time and without warning. ("The bastards snuck up and struck us in the Homeland!")

And the point of showing Americans that spectacle is so that they won't get too stroppy even if the War on Muslims costs them trillions, requires a load of dead "Boys", robs them of their civil liberties, and lasts forever.

20 comments:

Paul, I posted from another computer today, and the post appeared before he'd had the chance to block the IP address. So then he banned me again.

He is terribly in the huff with me, that prudent polemicist, that careful iconoclast, that effectively-whipped member of a joke 'revolutionary' party. And like Cockburn and Corn, he's desperately worried now. Ego-defences a-crumbling, left, right and centre. They all know that they're losing credibility as fast as Richard Nixon in 1974.

It is low, low comedy. But banishment from Lemon's Womb is nothing to worry about, compared to what Guido Salvini, Cynthia McKinney and Nick Levis have gone through. To name but a few.

So I'll just post my comments on his vain, cowardly and deeply dishonest bullshit here - and elsewhere.

By the way: if you think I'm being unnecessarily rude to him, you should read his comments to me on this topic over the last three years and more. My rudeness is now a necessity. I am sick to death of seeing this War propped up by people who claim to oppose it.

People like him and Cockburn carry on as if we all had endless time. We don't. And the topic is too important to drop. (Ask any Iraqi.)

Thanks for the moral and intellectual support, by the way. It was very heartening to see how you and the others listed above so stoutly refused to swallow his crap. When he comes out on parade on this issue of issues, Emperor Lenin just doesn't have a stitch on.

I thought Meaders' post couldn't be matched for sheer point-missing. But check this out, from Johng:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/lenin/116441426494675765/#361426

Meaders, Johng, 'Vicious Chekist' and the gang: this is what lenin calls his 'Tomb Patrol'. These are his Swiss Guards. These are his Moderators. These are the only people still supporting his nonsense. This is his last line of defense.

And that is the kind of 'left' the Right really loves, for they are dismally, ploddingly, wilfully, dependably harmless.

There's no way past it: If people likely Paul Thompson and Cynthia McKinney are really to be supported effectively now, people like Corn, Cockburn and the Tombsters will have to be opposed with all necessary rudeness. They are immune to all reason. They are a truly terrible waste of time.

So stuff them. Stuff them and their half-arsed, pig-ignorant, pro-war anti-warness. Their stupidity is the enemy, along with Bush and Cheney, whose wars it supports.

well this is the upsetting thing really, that trial. Because if you are willing to accept that evidence as a non-juror, then you would also presumably accept it as a juror. And that means the believers in the al qaeda fable - which is not of lenin's own concoction admittedly - are prepared to see TEN THOUSAND TRIALS of this kind, ten thousand men locked up, before they will begin to doubt the reality of this vast hairball of conspiracies.

i've said i don't agree with you w and paul that there can be impeachments and an iran-contra type thing, or that if there were it would have results any different from iran contra (nothing but ulmtimate benefit to those investigated). but still i wish people were not so ready to "connect the dots" in a way that condemns men, real people, to jail for things they probably didn't do or participate in. the idea of "al qaeda" becomes the substitute for evidence against individuals.

there can't be ten thousand accessories to six bomb plots, it's just not plausible.

al qaeda, the whole thrilling story, the narrative, it's this chimerical bridge presumed to assciate thousands of men with a few crimes committed by a CIA funded criminal merc and narcomafia.

with WTC 93, they kept changing the mastermind. it was Salameh at first, who really to me seems a sad case. then Yousef. The sheik Rahman. Years later they say its KSM, who is also the accused mastermind of every al qaeda bomb and/or hijacking plot practically. So if this is true the personnel are limited; its a little group - you can't have ten thousand guys available waiting to be terrorists and one guy doing everything running the thing like a chain of three dry cleaners. it's just not plausible.

"The prosecution accuses Mounir al-Motassadeq of belonging to a terrorist group and of having assisted the hijackers of the aeroplanes that crashed into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 and killed over 3,000 people. "

I mean, mebbe he did something, but really this guy could be TOTALLY INNOCENT. It's horrific; what could possibly be the motive to promote the idea that the bogus 'evidence' against him is fact other than to be sure he is railroaded? I mean, say he is guilty but it can't be proven and he gets away, is this the end of the world? It's like that's all anybody cares about is establishing that there are ten thousand guilty arabs out there, plotting and conspiring.

i find it hard to believe this utter lack of sympathy for these people. this readiness to propagate as sacred truth, visible to the mature (and to all good marxists!), the premises which underlie these flimsy prosecutions. these guys, whether innocent or a little guilty or really guilty, do not stand a chance of a half-fair trial in such a climate.

i can't even begin to imagine the level of the entrapment activity that goes on. you know some people, immigrants, in big european cities are so lonely they'll get involved with illegal stuff just to have friends. it's unbearable to think about. and they have no chance with people who have this vast disciplined army of martyrs in their imagination.

"i've said i don't agree with you w and paul that there can be impeachments and an iran-contra type thing, or that if there were it would have results any different from iran contra (nothing but ulmtimate benefit to those investigated)."

Colonel, I've come to agree with you that this is looking increasingly unlikely. When we see the depths of unreason (and evasive self-interest) at lenin's tomb, it's very hard to imagine the US Senate or the House of Commons ever being very much better or braver.

But this is the thing: what am I actually demanding of lenin, vc, meaders and the whole gang? That they take off into the woods and start a guerrilla movement? That they devote their lives to this topic? That they write daily letters to their MPs, even?

None of that. Just that they stop telling lies. I mean, I think there's a big emancipatory (and self-emancipatory) point to people just not telling big important lies or even defending them. And where that would eventually lead, nobody knows, least of all I.

But it's not my job to know, nor is it my ambition to control the outcome. And this is why it's so annoying to be accused so ridiculously of "tyranny" and "hegemony" - both words actually used in the last three days by lenin and VC respectively, both of whom I am apparently downtreading.

i've said i don't agree with you w and paul that there can be impeachments and an iran-contra type thing, or that if there were it would have results any different from iran contra (nothing but ulmtimate benefit to those investigated).

"A well focused campaign against a high, treasonous crime seems to be a legitimate strategy."

Whether its possible or not I was trying to help them understand why people waste their time on these things, and that their ambitions, while modest by swp lights are legitmate and even admirable.

I was talking about 'conspiracies' as per the post and they start dragging 911 true false into it

Vicious "Gelli was Framed" Checkist outed herself as a P2 truthie, trying to clear the besmirched name of fascismo. What could be expected there?

I don't get Lenin's investment in "Al Qaeda" and I thought he would be much more reluctant to accept "AQ" as this model member of this political species "Political Islam", an implicit lumping of narcoterrorist racketeer-spooks with political movements like Hezbollah and Hamas; this is such obvious propaganda with such obvious advantages to imperial policy. Also there is a kind of cartoonish essentialism in its attitude toward what is a capitalist. as if being a religious muslim, or "hating the West", turns a capitalist into something else. Like, yes, you can start out just a mercenary but if you are running a thirty million dollar a year diamond racket, you're a diamond racketeer. And whatever you believed and thought when you were a three thousand dollar a month mercenary, when you are a thirty million dollar a year racketeer, you think and act like a thiry million dollar a year racketeer or you are defeated in competition, because thirty million dollar a year rackets are valuable things and there is no shortage of racketeers who would be happy to have them.

"Whether its possible or not I was trying to help them understand why people waste their time on these things, and that their ambitions, while modest by swp lights are legitmate and even admirable."

I agree. And also, the people behind this are injured parties and there is liability here. They have every right; the jurisdiction of the crime in NY; they have every right to pursue the deep pocketed culprits. I support that effort entirely. I just personally wouldn't spend my own trying to get some kind of Iran Contra hearing thing happening. I think if there will ever be exposure, investigation and punihsment it will arise in a tort case, not a congressional investigation. Because not ever court in the US is corrupt; the entire bench and bar is not corrupt (more and more, but it's not total), whereas at this point all the senators and most of the reps are not only corrupt but complicit and besides the Bushes know all their swiss bank account numbers etc.

I think people not believing the story is a victory, and it would be good if enough people didn't believe that witchhunts of the middle class of the arab world (because that is what this is, one strategy for a war on the arab world's middle classes, who are essential to natioanlist resistence to the imperial rampage and primitive acculation) were less easy to conduct.

honestly I think the readiness to believe in al qaeda is partly the savouring of this possibility of the little paramilitary that could, the peety bourgeois fantasy of revolution, "petty bourgeois putschist jacquerie". 9/11 was the last sequence of the first Star Wars movie: using only the force, luke found the weak point of the death star and blasted it right in the hole! boom! the empire was severely wounded. so, even if you don't like the protagonists as they are portrayed, the idea that this is possible can appeal on some level. you can have an affection for the story which posits these weak pooints in the empire that a small band of devoted rebels could exploit to really hurt the empire, shake it, prove it is not invulnerable....

the caper dramatised for television something, a theme, that is kinda "true" perhaps (the empire is not invulnerable) but in a false way, physicalised it, mlilitarised it, hollywoodised it, and the result is to contain the intuition, to contain our awareness that the empire could be vulnerable to rebels, but locking it into this "terrorist plot" scenario, this petty bourgeois, right-slant dumasian scenario we are endlessly fed.

what it turned out was vulerable to a paramilitary caper mike that was the protections the people have wrung from the ruling class and inscribed in the state over generations. that edifice of protections, protections for the bankrupt from credit card companies, constitutional protections, worker safety protections, privacy protections, turned out to be vulerable and able to be destroyed by this kind of attack, but we knew that, that has happened before.

...i have for example mentioned the anthrax chaser to the attacks - perhaps unconnected to the four hijackings - dozens of times and nobody has yet acknowledge it. that would be strange were t not obvious that it doesn't fit in the genre, the movie, of the attacks. not only is it just hanging there an unsolved piece of plot, it's not a generically acceptable denouement or epiologue to the hijacking caper. it ruins the spine of the story. so it is simply suppressed in all discussions, simply set aside, even though it was significant factor influencing the actual political events which occurred in the aftermath of the hijackings.

so while it may be part of the history of the terrorist attacks on the US in 2001, it is not part of the screenplay.